Page 159 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
Interception and bugging. The Wireless and Telegraphy Acts and the Interception
of Communications Act 1985 apply criminal sanctions against those who plant
listening bugs or who intercept postal or telephone communications. However, the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (‘the RIPA’), Part 1 Chapter 1 of
which came into force in October 2000 and Part 3 of which came into force in
September 2000, has amended and indeed augmented the Government’s powers to
intercept, so much so that as a bill it was dubbed the ‘e-snooping bill’. It remains
to be seen how the RIPA will sit with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the
Data Protection Act 1998 (the ‘DPA’), which purports to enhance a person’s right
to privacy by safeguarding personal data more effectively (see Chapter 7).

Following its review, the Calcutt Committee report concluded that a law of privacy was both
practicable and justifiable, particularly in view of the absence of sufficient protection for the
individual against intrusion by the press. It found that there was a particularly ‘pressing
social need’ to protect individuals vulnerable to exploitation by virtue of age, immaturity,
infirmity, grief or the need to undergo medical treatment (paragraph 12.6). The Committee
expounded the view that a well-drafted tort of privacy would not unduly inhibit either
freedom of speech or investigative journalism.

Despite reaching the above conclusions, the Committee recommended against legislation to
create an enforceable general right of privacy. However, it said that the press had to clean up
its own house (paragraph 12.5):

We have concluded that an overwhelming case for introducing a statutory tort of
infringement of privacy has not so far been made out and that the better option lies
with the measures set out elsewhere in this report. We therefore recommend that
such a tort should not presently be introduced . . . We have come to our conclusion
from a variety of standpoints and for different reasons. No single argument has
prevailed for us all. Our grounds for deciding against the proposed tort include
arguments of principle, practical concerns and the availability of other options for
tackling the problems which we have identified. We make our recommendation on
the assumption that the improved scheme for self-regulation recommended [in this
report] will be made to work. Should this fail, the case for a statutory tort of
infringement of privacy might have to be reconsidered.

The ‘improved scheme for self-regulation’ proposed by Calcutt was the Press Complaints
Commission, which came into existence on 1 January 1999 (see Chapter 17).

8.3.2 Post-Calcutt

Two years after the Calcutt report, David Calcutt QC was asked to review the behaviour of
the press in relation to privacy and self-regulation during the intervening period. In the wake
of the report, published in 1993, the constitution of the Press Complaints Committee was
altered so as to contain a non-industry (in other words independent) majority.
122